Template talk:FOK treaties
iFOK - FOK treaty MvP, the wording of the treaty are deliberately vague so that no e-lawyer can say: "Hey it's an MDAP, so you should have done this or that". That's why we didn't call it an MDAP in the announcement, nor is it isn't called an MDAP on the treaty lists on both the iFOK and FOK forums, nor on the iFOK wiki. So why do you insist in calling it such? An example of the treaty not being used as a MDAP is in the WWE, where FOK stated that they would only defend their allies, but they sure weren't attacking anyone who iFOK was attacking. Spaarlaamp (talk • ) 23:32, January 22, 2010 (UTC) :That's why I hoped we'd be able to reach a compromise with the new wording. By all technical measures, it is a Treaty of Friendship. It doesn't state that you're obliged to do anything at all: that's what a ToF is. However, for all practical purposes, it can be used as high as an MADP - "we'll stand by each other". If you are really that unwilling to compromise, then state that you've created a new type of treaty altogether - you could call it, for example, a Treaty of Optional Alignment, or whatever else you come up with. But just putting "Whatever" is extremely unencyclopedic in nature, and as this is an encyclopedia, there's got to be a better way to go about it. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 9:87, Tridi, 3 Pluviôse CCXVIII :Oke I'll compromise.. :'( :Spaarlaamp (talk • ) 23:44, January 22, 2010 (UTC) :I support either the dual terming or simply the use of ToF. A ToF is "whatever we want it to be." That's what you call that kind of treaty. It's only been called an MDAP because of the strength of a relationship you have that makes it likely to be used as such, even though it doesn't actually bind that way. Would you settle for ToF or MDAP/ToF? As MvP says, just naming it "whatever" isn't very encyclopedic, so you have to give it some sort of recognized category for the general public. Also, damn you for replying before I finished. Now all this text is irrevlevant, but I'm not letting that work go to waste. :P Locke Talk • Alestor ' 23:46, January 22, 2010 (UTC)' :Hehe, I agree on the dual terming. But I changed it to ToF/MDAP to have de jure first and de facto second, since I think the factual type of treaty should be first. :Spaarlaamp (talk • ) 23:54, January 22, 2010 (UTC) ::Sounds good. I'll look through the articles in a bit and see if I can gleam enough content to make an article for the actual treaty, explaining the meaning and technicalities, in which case I'll link to it from here. If I don't, I'll make some sort of a collapsible footnote for it or something, that way we both get the encyclopedic formula as well as fully explaining what it means. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 9:99, Tridi, 3 Pluviôse CCXVIII : That would be nice. :Spaarlaamp (talk • ) 00:10, January 23, 2010 (UTC) ::There you are: Probably the Shortest Treaty Ever. Edit the summary if you feel it needs it. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 1:12, Quartidi, 4 Pluviôse CCXVIII :I like it! :Spaarlaamp (talk • ) 02:46, January 23, 2010 (UTC)